Pedophilia

[Intoxicator]

This is an important addition to this debate. No one has yet discussed about the various paedophile scandals that have implicated establishment involvement and cover ups. Anyone British will probably have heard of this in relation to 1. Fred and Rosemary West, the British serial killers who also pimped out their daughters, often allegedly to establishment figures and police officers.
2.Marc Dutroux, the Beast of Belgium. There was a huge public march, protesting about the State's handling of the case of this paedophile serial killer. Officials seemed to have routinely ignored tips that later proved accurate, including Dutroux's own mother saying he was holding girls captive at one of his houses. One of the men arrested with Dutroux claimed some of the girls were "kidnapped to order" for someone else.
Dutroux was a key player in a child prostitution and pornography ring.
One of Dutroux's accomplices was a businessman who admitted organising an orgy at a Belgian chateau attended by governement officials, a former European commisioner and police.
"A Belgian senator noted, quite accurately, that such parties were a part of a system 'which operates to this day and is used to blackmail the highly placed people who take part'".
http://www.the7thfire.com/politics and%History/Pedophocracy/child_sexual_abuse_in_Brussels.htm

3. Thomas Hamilton. The Dunblane Primary school massacre. Hamilton walked into the Scottish school and shot dead 14 children and a few teachers. He was a paedophile who ran a boys club. There's a lot of suspicious goings on in this case and the (Cullen) inquiry into it has classified some information as having to be kept secret for 100 years. The highest government involvement is strongly implicated in this case, a clandestine peadophile ring reportedly set up by Hamilton for the British elite.

4. The Welsh children care homes scandal. Frank Beck (who worked at a home or was in charge in some way) took the rap for the child abuse going on
but he claimed that he procured children for others. As a result of claims by one young man that when he was in care, Beck took him to the home of Greville Janner, where he was sexually abused, Janner was investigated by police. Lord Janner is/was chairman (of something I won't mention), a Labour MP, and a QC (magistrate). He was not convicted. http://www.bvalphaserver.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4723

There are RUMOURS circling on the net that the Blair's administration is a total licentious club of flamboyant homosexual cruisers and out of control paedophiles, and that the newspapers have gagging orders on them because if the truth came out it would bring the government down (understatement!).
There is SUSPICION that America uses the threat of exposing the truth of what is going on to keep Blair obedient to Bush's war on terror.
I don't know what to believe myself, but it is worth thinking about. Google a certain politician's name followed by "paedophile" and see. (This is speculation only and there is no attempt to insinuate that it is anything more than that, we all know you can't believe everything on the net, but we can be open minded.)

Very interesting.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

i just saw a cout tv special about how there is such a disurbingly huge number of female teachers having sex with male students and that for various reasons the incedentses just don't get any national attention the way that the mary-kay laterneau case did, partially because when the teacher is female and the student is male, they're more descreete about it where the prosecution can't get enough evidence for it actually get it to a trial
this seems to prove that female psych doctor's theory that women are actually more likely to have pedophilistic thoughts but that men are sexually impulsive because a man's orgasm is neccassary for the survival of the species, but that a female instinctively suppress their sexual impulses in order to create/fit into society

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

I pray to every god that has been thought of existing in the history of mankind that this so called "point" has been addressed, but I am doubtful.

As a student of history I can print out this quote here and have a good chuckle at your opinion.

Was it 14 year old girls marrying 14 year old boys in the 1600s, or instead 14 year old girls marrying 30 year old + men for the power and wealth the marriage would bring. I hardly would say it was a consenting marriage as well.

Love in marriage is a very modern concept.

If 14 year olds want to have sex with another 14 year old than besides the obvious risk of STD's and pregnancy it is to me morally a fine thing, that’s not the point of this thread

It is more of a question of someone aged 20+ sleeping with a 14 year old and that is in my opinion morally incorrect.

I am 23 and I find the idea of sleeping with a 14 year old or even a 16 year old so devoid of decency that I could never do it, stick to people your own age is my thoughts.

Also the guy throwing the term Moral relativism around, take this on board.

From a moral relativism position MOST of the west in its values believes that sleeping with a child, say for example anyone under the age of 16 is morally wrong. I of course mean adults, which is obviously why every western nation I can think of basically has an age of consent.

So from that position it is wrong for an adult to be sexual with a child and more so it is equally as right for society to charge them with the same crime that they would charge someone who had raped a child with.

I am not talking divine command theory or Utilitarianism here, I am speaking from a relativism point of view the sceptical belief that there are no governing morals and that ethics is something that is down to culture (which is a strange point to be raising) your opinions on it being acceptable for an adult to help a child reach orgasm or however you creepily phrased it are no more valid than my opinion that people who sexually interfere with children should be executed.

Culturally in the west my friend the facts are it is morally wrong to sexually interfere with children, you are the one advocating from a culture to culture bases, I guess if people want to molest children they should leap into a time machine and transport themselves to an era when it was socially acceptable.

P.S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy

if i get really horny, i'm gonna be more able to notice the subtle nuances of someone else being horny (this is a biological fact btw) if after noticing someone else being horny, i decide to be altruistic and perform oral on them with no expectation of having my own orgasm, then i would be considered a god, right???
but then, if the person i performed oral on had gotten into a singles bar using a fake ID, and had obtained the fake ID for the purpouse of reaching orgasm, then, even though they'd lied to me about their age, i'm still the monster, i'm still the one that has done something wrong even though the other person was deceptive and i'd done something altruistic!!! this is not something i'm making up this is something that happens every night in every singles bar in america!!!
bottom line, "absolute law" just doesn't fucking work in the real world, because it only measures what actions have actually occured instead of measuring "malicious intent" the way that "moral relativism" does

 

[petehis kahn]

if i get really horny, i'm gonna be more able to notice the subtle nuances of someone else being horny (this is a biological fact btw) if after noticing someone else being horny, i decide to be altruistic and perform oral on them with no expectation of having my own orgasm, then i would be considered a god, right???
but then, if the person i performed oral on had gotten into a singles bar using a fake ID, and had obtained the fake ID for the purpouse of reaching orgasm, then, even though they'd lied to me about their age, i'm still the monster, i'm still the one that has done something wrong even though the other person was deceptive and i'd done something altruistic!!! this is not something i'm making up this is something that happens every night in every singles bar in america!!!
bottom line, "absolute law" just doesn't fucking work in the real world, because it only measures what actions have actually occured instead of measuring "malicious intent" the way that "moral relativism" does

I'd hardly say that performing oral on a child is an altruistic thing to do, I have known ladies who have been abused or experienced sex young and they either have severe emotional problems caused by it or are in fact regretful for their choices.

Girls who are socially happy do not sneak into bars to have oral performed upon them by "altruistic" men.

Moral relativism is not a way to govern laws, anyone with a passing understanding of laws knows it’s unworkable. The facts are for fairness absolute law is the only way things can go, should we have some form of test to see if a person is able to handle creepy old men picking them up in bars, or perhaps a machine could be invented to hook up to peoples brains that will allow us to know when full sexual maturity happens.

Also you were arguing from a child developing sexually mentally before physically and this too is a fairly abhorrent stance. I have a great curiosity about the afterlife and what happens when we die, that does not mean I should hurry it up and shoot myself. It means I should wait for when it happens and enjoy life now. Same with sex, a child being curious about something like sex that is seen in the west as almost taboo (less so now days) is hardly going to impress me enough to see it from your point of view, forbidden fruit and all that.

Children in our western culture are not to be touched sexually, I would argue from a relativist point that you basically have to live with that fact. The ethics of countries like America, Australia, and England etc is adults do not touch children in a sexual way.

How is this from some relativist view point, I personally believe I should be able to hunt down and murder anyone who has committed sexual offences against children, should I be able to justify my murder by saying I simply hate disgusting paedophiles or perhaps that I can see that ethically we are obliged to live by the rules that society sets.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

I'd hardly say that performing oral on a child is an altruistic thing to do, I have known ladies who have been abused or experienced sex young and they either have severe emotional problems caused by it or are in fact regretful for their choices.

Girls who are socially happy do not sneak into bars to have oral performed upon them by "altruistic" men.

Moral relativism is not a way to govern laws, anyone with a passing understanding of laws knows it’s unworkable. The facts are for fairness absolute law is the only way things can go, should we have some form of test to see if a person is able to handle creepy old men picking them up in bars, or perhaps a machine could be invented to hook up to peoples brains that will allow us to know when full sexual maturity happens.

Also you were arguing from a child developing sexually mentally before physically and this too is a fairly abhorrent stance. I have a great curiosity about the afterlife and what happens when we die, that does not mean I should hurry it up and shoot myself. It means I should wait for when it happens and enjoy life now. Same with sex, a child being curious about something like sex that is seen in the west as almost taboo (less so now days) is hardly going to impress me enough to see it from your point of view, forbidden fruit and all that.

Children in our western culture are not to be touched sexually, I would argue from a relativist point that you basically have to live with that fact. The ethics of countries like America, Australia, and England etc is adults do not touch children in a sexual way.

How is this from some relativist view point, I personally believe I should be able to hunt down and murder anyone who has committed sexual offences against children, should I be able to justify my murder by saying I simply hate disgusting paedophiles or perhaps that I can see that ethically we are obliged to live by the rules that society sets.

switch the genders
if the younger person is male and the older person is female then your argument pretty much falls apart

 

[petehis kahn]

switch the genders
if the younger person is male and the older person is female then your argument pretty much falls apart

No it doesn't.

Women have been prosecuted for sexually abusing boys before and will be again in the future.

I am as opposed to women sexually abusing boys as I am men sexually abusing girls. The gender is irrelevant.

 

[Shiny McShining Rodriguez]

switch the genders
if the younger person is male and the older person is female then your argument pretty much falls apart

Out of interest, can you explain HOW it pretty much falls appart by switching the genders?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Out of interest, can you explain HOW it pretty much falls appart by switching the genders?

okay, i can understand your confusion, i was making a reference to my previous post about the "adult" performing oral on a "child"

 

[Shiny McShining Rodriguez]

Yes, I know what you were talking about... it seems there are few other topics of such great interest to you.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Yes, I know what you were talking about... it seems there are few other topics of such great interest to you.

well NOW
i was a total postwhore back before all the threads degenerated into crap

 

[derek]

If you've got constructive criticism then feel free to share, but don't randomly call the board crap.

 

[petehis kahn]

i agree with you i think there's a really big difference between making a really really young girl orgasm and "molesting" a girl which is something that alot of people really think should be labeled as "rape"

good lord.

This is one of the most disgusting quotes I have ever seen on the internet, I hope you are mearly trolling the thread and this is not your personal beliefs.

 

[derek]

I am locking this thread for now. I'm not entirely sure it is heading in a direction that is really suitable.